George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #11 Tues. July 9

[Etiana]

MO'M is the best lawyer in this case IMO but honestly, he does go on sometimes. Time to get on with it! Will the prosecution then ask this expert questions? ugh.

 

[sacrablue]

IMO, GZ wasn't walking around shooting and killing Trayvon. It is IMO, which I believe has been shown so far by the evidence presented in court, that Trayvon made it back to Brandi Green's house based on RJ testimony, and then for whatever reason, decided to go back to confront george and IMO TM was the aggressor and was shot because he refused to back down after GZ was repeatedly screaming for help and after John Green came out and told them to "knock it off." again all IMO.

Just ask yourself, would you live in Twin Lakes and feel safe for any invited guests and yourself with GZ walking around with a hidden gun? IMO
Is this the life you work your entire life to enjoy?

 

[Just K]

Mr Shoemaker said he didn't try to recreate the lighting. OMG!!! That is the crux of this case, IMO. Mr Shoemaker said the jury would have a hard time seeing detail. Well, IMO, that was the real problem with all of the witnesses and the jury needs to know that no one said they could see much of anything. Wow! IMO, for all of the above.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't GZ say he would meet the police at the mailboxes near the clubhouse.

The crime scene appears to be half way between TMs dads girlfriends and the mailboxes. How do we know that when GZ was running (911 call) that he wasn't running to dads girlfriends in pursuit of TM with gun in hand and when TM saw the gun he took off in opposite direction??? IMO

He said he was in the car. You hear him get out and this is at the place his car is still parked when police arrive. He originally says he is near mailboxes but then says have police call me when they arrive. It is not until he gets out of the car where parkes that the Operator suggest he not follow TM. He is still in the same general area when the fight happens. He has not moved more than that lateral sidewalk.

I did not hear any running from GZ on the call. I hear wind but that to me sounds like walking not running..

As per RJ testimony TM is home. There is no forgetting that. He is home. GZ did not get down to TM's residence. HE stayed where he was. IT is TM that went looking for him again.

That is from evidence..

The rest of your post has no foundation in any fact.

I am only going off the evidence that has been presented. Not supposition. I am following the facts of the case without prejudice.


OMO

 

[popsicle]

Just ask yourself, would you live in Twin Lakes and feel safe for any invited guests and yourself with GZ walking around with a hidden gun? IMO
Is this the life you work your entire life to enjoy?

jmo But you might be surprised about how many people around you are ccw.

 

[qwerty2013]

My scenario is equivalent to what the current evidence shows (IMO). Lets say the woman was an adult in my scenario and the person dead was 17. Would you jump to the auto assumption the woman shot the guy in cold blood, when her face had injuries, when her dress was in disarray and showed evidence that she was on the floor?

You said 'reasonably believe'. You make GZ's argument for him. He had someone on top of him, his hands in his face, yelling for help (all IMO). He reasonably believed if nothing happened he would of been seriously injured/killed. How are you the arbitrary judge on how much one must be in fear before they take matters into their own hands?

IMO, no, your scenario did not at all describe that witnesses testified that the bigger, older woman, the killer, had targeted and *gone after* the younger, smaller girl (since gender should be the same for both perp and victim...), while muttering expletives.

IMO, self-defense isn't applicable for hair in disarray, crumpled clothes and light bruises on the face. After all, these could all have been inflicted when the younger, smaller, unarmed victim was fighting for her life.

Jurors will look at the evidence rather than the woman's/killer's own account to arrive at the judgment. IMO.

Judgment is not based on perpetrator's words, but the *available evidence* or *LACK* thereof, IMHO.

IMO, judgment that is a result of the available evidence, based on judiciary due process, is therefore not arbitrary.

 

[sacrablue]

Just like the one sided blood test, the State should be able to display there cartoons to show their side of the story.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Just ask yourself, would you live in Twin Lakes and feel safe for any invited guests and yourself with GZ walking around with a hidden gun? IMO
Is this the life you work your entire life to enjoy?

Many people walk around with guns everywhere.. You just don't see them. IT has nothing to do with this one particular area. It is legal. I would be less worried about the ones carrying legally than the ones who are not.

People all have weapons everywhere.. And I would feel safer knowing someone was looking out for my guests.

OMO

 

[popsicle]

Mr Shoemaker said he didn't try to recreate the lighting. OMG!!! That is the crux of this case, IMO. Mr Shoemaker said the jury would have a hard time seeing detail. Well, IMO, that was the real problem with all of the witnesses and the jury needs to know that no one said they could see much of anything. Wow! IMO, for all of the above.

He is showing the defense's side of what happened that night...not what people saw or could have seen only. jmo

 

[missmazzy]

Just ask yourself, would you live in Twin Lakes and feel safe for any invited guests and yourself with GZ walking around with a hidden gun? IMO
Is this the life you work your entire life to enjoy?

After the shooting, GZ had to move, probably due to the $15,000 bounty on his head.

 

[Just K]

MPO, the only true recreation would include an accurate depiction of the lighting from all of the angles...based on witness testimony.

 

[cityslick]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't GZ say he would meet the police at the mailboxes near the clubhouse.

The crime scene appears to be half way between TMs dads girlfriends and the mailboxes. How do we know that when GZ was running (911 call) that he wasn't running to dads girlfriends in pursuit of TM with gun in hand and when TM saw the gun he took off in opposite direction??? IMO

Because there is no evidence to support it. RJ's testimony doesn't indicate at any time that TM knew GZ had a gun.

 

[sacrablue]

jmo But you might be surprised about how many people around you are ccw.

First of all I see no reason why some people are walking around armed. This case is proof that these permits are handed out like bird seed. The education requirements are pathetic at best.
I have many friends that carry. If they have one thing in common it is they are all worried their rights are being removed. So what do they do?
Go out and buy more weapons and ammunition. IMO

 

[cityslick]

??

I saw the woman from Columbia testifying, can't remember her name. Am I forgetting? I thought she saw GZ on top? Or at least saw the red/white colors on top.

IMO and perhaps faulty memory.

After the shot had already happened. She didn't see the fight in progress.

 

[claudicici]

Thank you judge !!!!

 

[Trident]

Wow, In My Opinion, this judge is more interested in TIME than JUSTICE.

 

[Chester_from_THM]

I wonder why they didn't have this hearing before the trial started?

I realize the expert would have had to finalize his animation based on the actual testimony, but could they have had the daubert hearing before trial, and then some kind of review without all the recitation of his CV and technologies that is taking 3 hours today.

 

[?noanswer]

First of all I see no reason why some people are walking around armed. This case is proof that these permits are handed out like bird seed. The education requirements are pathetic at best.
I have many friends that carry. If they have one thing in common it is they are all worried their rights are being removed. So what do they do?
Go out and buy more weapons and ammunition. IMO

I don't like guns myself. But taking away the rights of people to carry them won't happen for a long time, if ever.

JMO

 

[Perthgirl62]

No. not without cause.

It is not the same thing IMO.

He has just shot someone and killed them (in so called self defence) I would think that would be sufficient cause. IMO

 

[?noanswer]

After the shot had already happened. She didn't see the fight in progress.

Thanks for that info. I did not know that is when she saw the guy in red on top.

JMO